This list covers the use of MH-E.

Henrik Frisk | 24 Jul 2011 13:19

Checking bcc field in sent messages

Hi all,

Is there a way to see what recipients I had entered in the bcc header for a message in my +outbox (filed there by
Fcc: +outbox)? If not, what would I need to do in order to save this information in the future?

Thanks for any help!

/Henrik

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention
Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth
analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/

headers

Jon Fairbairn | 25 Jul 2011 10:41

Re: Checking bcc field in sent messages

Henrik Frisk <mail <at> henrikfrisk.com> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to see what recipients I had entered in the bcc
> header for a message in my +outbox (filed there by Fcc:
> +outbox)?

If your MTA logs outgoing message recipients, you can look
there, otherwise I don’t think so.

> If not, what would I need to do in order to save this
> information in the future?

Appeal to the authors of nmh? This seems to me to be a
misfeature of nmh. Surely, Bcc and Dcc should hide the recipient
list from the recipients, but it should not hide them from the
Fcc copy.

--

-- 
Jón Fairbairn                                 Jon.Fairbairn <at> cl.cam.ac.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Efficiency Calculator
This modeling tool is based on patent-pending intellectual property that
has been used successfully in hundreds of IBM storage optimization engage-
ments, worldwide.  Store less, Store more with what you own, Move data to 
the right place. Try It Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51427378/
_______________________________________________
mh-e-users mailing list

(Continue reading)

headers

Bill Wohler | 26 Jul 2011 07:26

Re: Checking bcc field in sent messages

Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn <at> cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Henrik Frisk <mail <at> henrikfrisk.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is there a way to see what recipients I had entered in the bcc
> > header for a message in my +outbox (filed there by Fcc:
> > +outbox)?
> 
> If your MTA logs outgoing message recipients, you can look
> there, otherwise I don’t think so.
> 
> > If not, what would I need to do in order to save this
> > information in the future?
> 
> Appeal to the authors of nmh? This seems to me to be a
> misfeature of nmh. Surely, Bcc and Dcc should hide the recipient
> list from the recipients, but it should not hide them from the
> Fcc copy.

Yes, I believe Jon is spot on.

--

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler <at> newt.com> aka <Bill.Wohler <at> nasa.gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention

(Continue reading)

headers

Jeffrey Honig | 26 Jul 2011 17:06

Re: Checking bcc field in sent messages

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:26, Bill Wohler <wohler <at> newt.com> wrote:

Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn <at> cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Henrik Frisk <mail <at> henrikfrisk.com> writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is there a way to see what recipients I had entered in the bcc
> > header for a message in my +outbox (filed there by Fcc:
> > +outbox)?
>
> If your MTA logs outgoing message recipients, you can look
> there, otherwise I don’t think so.
>
> > If not, what would I need to do in order to save this
> > information in the future?
>
> Appeal to the authors of nmh? This seems to me to be a
> misfeature of nmh. Surely, Bcc and Dcc should hide the recipient
> list from the recipients, but it should not hide them from the
> Fcc copy.

Yes, I believe Jon is spot on.

One disadvantage of including them in the filed copy is that if you forward or redist the message the Bcc and Dcc recipients will then be visible. So any solution should involve options to other programs to insure this does have unintended side effects.

Thanks

Jeff

--
Jeffrey C. Honig <jch <at> honig.net>
http://www.honig.net/jch
GnuPG ID:14E29E13 <http://www.honig.net/jch/key.shtml>

--
Bill Wohler <wohler <at> newt.com> aka <Bill.Wohler <at> nasa.gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention
Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth
analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/
_______________________________________________
mh-e-users mailing list
mh-e-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mh-e-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention
Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth
analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/

_______________________________________________
mh-e-users mailing list
mh-e-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mh-e-users

headers

Bill Wohler | 26 Jul 2011 23:30

Re: Checking bcc field in sent messages

Jeffrey Honig <jch <at> honig.net> wrote:

> One disadvantage of including them in the filed copy is that if you forward or redist the message the Bcc and Dcc
> recipients will then be visible.  So any solution should involve options to other programs to insure
this does
> have unintended side effects.

I'd assume that the same mechanism used in comp would be used in redist,
and hopefully forw and repl and others as well. You are correct in that
the Bcc and Dcc fields must never be allowed to leak out, which leads me
to believe that they were not included in the Fcc copy in the first
place since protecting against leakage was too hard to implement.

--

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler <at> newt.com> aka <Bill.Wohler <at> nasa.gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
mh-e-users mailing list
mh-e-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mh-e-users

headers

Henrik Frisk | 27 Jul 2011 10:29

Re: Checking bcc field in sent messages

Bill Wohler <wohler <at> newt.com> wrote:

> > 
> > > If not, what would I need to do in order to save this
> > > information in the future?
> > 
> > Appeal to the authors of nmh? This seems to me to be a
> > misfeature of nmh. Surely, Bcc and Dcc should hide the recipient
> > list from the recipients, but it should not hide them from the
> > Fcc copy.
> 
> Yes, I believe Jon is spot on.
> 
OK, I understand. I'll make sure to save the addresses separately in the future. I guess I could also write a
small routine to harvest the bcc addresses before sending the message.

Thanks for the info and thanks for a great package!

/Henrik

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey